MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165962198 · doi:10.2196/16847

The Annual American Men’s Internet Survey of Behaviors of Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: 2017 Key Indicators Report

2020· article· en· W3165962198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Zlotorzynska, Cera Cantu, Ramona Rai, Patrick S. Sullivan, Travis Sanchez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonEmory University
KeywordsKey (lock)The InternetMen who have sex with menPsychologyGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthMedicineFamily medicineComputer scienceSociologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Computer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Men's Internet Survey (AMIS) is an annual Web-based behavioral survey of men who have sex with men (MSM) who live in the United States. This Rapid Surveillance Report describes the fifth cycle of data collection (July 2017 to November 2017: AMIS 2017). The key indicators are the same as those previously reported for past AMIS cycles (December 2013 to May 2014: AMIS 2013; November 2014 to April 2015: AMIS 2014; September 2015 to April 2016: AMIS 2015; and September 2016 to February 2017: AMIS 2016). The AMIS methodology has not substantively changed since AMIS 2016. The MSM were recruited from a variety of websites using banner advertisements and email blasts. Additionally, participants from AMIS 2016 who agreed to be recontacted for future research were emailed a link to AMIS 2017. Men were eligible to participate if they were aged ≥15 years, resided in the United States, provided a valid US zone improvement plan code, and reported ever having sex with a man or identified as gay or bisexual. The analysis was limited to those who reported having oral or anal sex with a male partner in the past 12 months. We examined demographic and recruitment characteristics using multivariable regression modeling (P<.05) stratified by the participants' self-reported HIV status. The AMIS 2017 round of data collection resulted in 10,049 completed surveys from MSM representing every US state, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Participants were mainly non-Hispanic white, over the age of 40 years, living in the Southern United States and urban areas, and recruited from geospatial social networking websites. The plurality (4485/10,049, 44.6%) of participants was in the 40 years and older age group, followed by the youngest age group, 15 to 24 years (2726/10,049, 27.1%). Self-reported HIV prevalence was 9.6% (964/10,049). Compared with HIV-negative or unknown-status participants, HIV-positive participants were more likely to have had anal sex without a condom with a male partner in the past 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.21, 95% CI 1.86-2.63) and more likely to have had anal sex without a condom with a serodiscordant or an unknown-status partner (aOR 3.13, 95% CI 2.71-3.62). The reported use of marijuana in the past 12 months was higher among HIV-positive participants than HIV-negative or unknown status participants (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09-1.51). The reported use of methamphetamines and other illicit substances in the past 12 months was higher among HIV-positive participants than HIV-negative or unknown status participants (aOR 5.57, 95% CI 4.38-7.09 and aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.65-2.27, respectively). Most HIV-negative or unknown status participants (7330/9085, 80.7%) reported ever taking an HIV test previously, and 60.6% (5504/9085) reported undergoing HIV testing in the past 12 months. HIV-positive participants were more likely to report testing and diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections than HIV-negative or unknown status participants (aOR 2.85, 95% CI 2.46-3.31 and aOR 2.73, 95% CI 2.29-3.26, respectively).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207